[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0906021528210.14994@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 15:30:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, stable@...nel.org,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] function-graph: enable the stack after initialization
of other variables
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_functions_graph.c b/kernel/trace/trace_functions_graph.c
> > index d28687e..baeb5fe 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_functions_graph.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_functions_graph.c
> > @@ -65,6 +65,12 @@ ftrace_push_return_trace(unsigned long ret, unsigned long func, int *depth)
> > if (!current->ret_stack)
> > return -EBUSY;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * We must make sure the ret_stack is tested before we read
> > + * anything else.
> > + */
> > + smp_rmb();
>
>
> Isn't this part a too much costly for very traced function?
I was thinking that, but otherwise we still have the problem. It is a read
barrier which I don't think is as costly as a write or full barrier. But
because we have the if statement, perhaps a "read_barrier_depends" can do?
[ added Paul McKenney because he's good with barriers ]
-- Steve
>
>
> > +
> > /* The return trace stack is full */
> > if (current->curr_ret_stack == FTRACE_RETFUNC_DEPTH - 1) {
> > atomic_inc(¤t->trace_overrun);
> > --
> > 1.6.3.1
> >
> > --
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists